Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 1

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Some other admins might close this as "not moved", but in reading over the discussion I found the support votes to be generally stronger than the more numerous opposers (but not significantly so). Clearly this article does not meet the usage criterion of primary topic and there are a lot of viewers of this article who are searching for something else. But, equally clearly, the ant meets the long-term significance criterion. Generally in situations like this where the two criteria conflict, the usual practice is to have a dab page at the base location. However, there are exceptions to that standard practice (both in favour of usage and in favour of long-term significance) and, in this case, it is apparent that a clear majority of the community would prefer a primary topic in favour of long-term significance. Hence, there is no consensus to move this page. On the moratorium question, I don't think there is a consensus to enforce a moratorium on this article, however if anyone is looking at making this proposal again I would recommend waiting at least a few months. Jenks24 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate → Gamergate (biology) – First, please read this if nothing else: I am not going to make any value judgments about the Gamergate controversy here, and I strongly ask you not to do so either.

Now then. I propose moving this page and having the base title as a disambiguation page with the ant, the controversy, and a See also section for the online retailer. While I'm often among the first to recommend against a

For now, though, it makes little sense to favor this article. Perhaps one day it will earn primary-topic status. Until it does, I think we should be more responsiveness to the needs of our readers. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

No. The ant will remain long after the harassment campaign is a mere footnote in history, remembered only by the fedora m'lady crowd.--Jorm (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't move. I think we've established time and again that the ant in the primary topic, regardless of recent page views. During the last discussion, I believe we also establish that there should be a moratorium on moving either the controversy page or this page. That was accomplished by locking move requests at the controversy article. We should be fine leaving this page as is given all the previous conversations even excluding the controversy aspect and just focusing on the ant.
  talk
  ) 21:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you summarize the argument for the primacy of the ant? I looked through some of the talk page archives for the controversy, but obviously not all 40-something pages of it. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't move. I agree with the reasons above; moreover, as a general matter, where something is named as part of a systematic scheme, I think such names should take precedence over usages that are more idiomatic. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dumuzid, what do you mean by "systematic scheme"? --BDD (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it is part of scientific nomenclature for the members of an ant colony, and is derived from the Greek. That's the sort of thing I mean; gamergate as an ant is used as a recognized term of art in entomological texts. Gamergate the controversy was adopted from a tweet. That's all! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Personally, I don't see that as relevant under our naming conventions, but thanks for explaining. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's more my predilection than anything drawn from naming policy. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose move - we might consider the disambig if a third thing comes along called Gamergate, but for now the hat note seems sufficient. Artw (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

user:SSTflyer may have a valid point below though. Channing my vote to support accordingly. Artw (talk

) 13:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This suggestion seems like
  WP:RECENTISM; in the long run, it doesn't seem likely that an internet controversy will attract more attention than a scientific term. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 23:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While there was nothing particularly remarkable about the year 300 as far as years go, 300 is still about the year, not about the 2007 movie (300 (film)). This is still the case even though the pageview ratio is over 18.6:1 in favor of the film (9393 vs. 174961 over 90 days) and the film's article is ranked #159 for traffic. There are plenty of other examples where long-term significance is obvious enough to overcome pageview disparities, but the numbers with the "300"s are the most overwhelmingly lopsided ones I'm aware of.

Even though 300 wasn't an especially noteworthy year, it is still a year, and it is hard to think of a situation where any movie could be significant enough for a year not to be a primary topic over it. Likewise, even if the ant wasn't an especially noteworthy insect, I can't see how a news story of a rather specialist interest that will more likely than not be little-remembered soon enough could be considered significant enough to make this change. Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support even though this is probably
  sst✈
  08:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The brief and apparently fading popular interest in the term (speculated, probably accurately, to reflect interest in the video-game-related term) shouldn't require Wikipedia to turn the much longer established and much more durable entomological term into a redirect. The Readers First essay is fully satisfied in my view by the hatnote. Nobody interested in the video game topic will spend more than 2 seconds reading this article before they recognize that it's not the topic they were looking for and then they will quickly find their way to the other article. And the number of readers coming here accidentally has fallen dramatically (>35x) since the glory days of the controversy (compare Sep 2014 pageviews with today's pageviews) and it will continue to fall. The significance of the difference in page views is not sufficient in my view to suggest that we should give up on the "long-term significance" leg of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose A type of ant will always be significant, while current internet dramah will be a forgotten footnote. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The above comment about "unilaterally enforced" is misguided—admins are responsible for keeping the peace following an
  WP:AE is the place to request comments about any claims of unilateral enforcement. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 09:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Indeed, this article didn't exist prior to the video game controversy." This is false. The article was created at 19:36 on 22 July 2012‎ as a redirect to "Harpegnathos" (a gamergatoid genus of ant). It was expanded into a full article at 02:27 on 12 August 2014‎. All sources I've seen indicate that the controversy only became known to the public after Aug 20th. As many have suggested above, the part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that must be considered here is the "long-term significance" leg. The ant will have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than the flash-in-the-pan culture clash. -Thibbs (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects are not articles. But it looks like it does still predate the controversy article, which I can only date to 5 September 2014. So perhaps the ant article was created not long before the start of the controversy. Quite a coincidence. Apologies, and the incorrect statement is struck. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"Redirects are not articles." Granted, but it seems clear to me that regardless of whether it was a redirect or an article, the term's entomological meaning on Wikipedia predates its video game meaning by a good 2 years at least. Thanks for striking that part of the argument. -Thibbs (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support disambiguation. If ever a situation needed disambiguating, this is it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support—Could we please take the interests of readers-in-search into account? [Disclaimer: I'm stalking Dicklyon's contribs upon his recent return to the project.] Tony (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. When the ants finally gain world domination, I, for one, will support a restoration of their primary topic status. H. Humbert (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose My god, when will people ever accept that this article is the primary topic? Whether or not this article should become a disambiguation page, it is not necessary by the time everyone forgets about this childish controversy so no action should be taken anyway. It may be helpful for a short period of time, but it won't in the long run. My reasons are same to that of Aquillion's and Thibb's. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Where else to people accept that a topic getting less than 10% of the traffic on an ambiguous term is primarytopic? That's a clear sign that a disambiguation page is better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • This lemma got only 125 hits a month before the Baldwin tweet, so over 98 percent of the current traffic is spillover. H. Humbert (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • That's a bit misleading. As BDD already pointed out, the page was a redirect throughout the month of June 2014 so it's not too surprising that it received few hits (those would only have been internally-generated hits instead of search-engine-disoverable hits). Consider August 2014 before the controversy broke. If we subtract off the huge numbers of views generated on Aug 30 and 31 we see 414 hits and those represent only views on a stub article for 2 weeks (between Aug 12 and Aug 29). If we extrapolate this we might predict ~800 hits for the stub for the month. Since that time the article has been expanded into a full article and was featured on the frontpage as a DYK. It's probable that the hitcount is somewhat elevated by the name of the 2014 scandal, but 98 percent elevated seems like an over-exaggeration. -Thibbs (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • In that case, I recalculate as 94 percent overspill. ((414/17)90)/35824. H. Humbert (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
          • The 35824 includes two interesting spikes. The most recent one is almost certainly related to this RM, not the video game controversy... I'm not sure what accounts for the other one, but it doesn't seem to match a similar spike at the GamerGate controversy article. For comparison's sake, if we look at the 3 months making up the 90-day stretch you're looking at, October shows close connections between the two articles (compare 1 to 2) but November (1, 2) and December (1, 2) (the two months that contain the spikes that skew the results for this article the most) do not. I'm not sure we can lay these hitcount spikes at GamerGate's doorstep. -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
            • OK I've redone the calculation for the last 30 days removing the skew-introducing spike related to this RM and using a simple DYKSTATS-inspired correction for background views. I see (414/17)30/(7965-1549+((233+313)/2)) → 89% overspill. Of course that still fails to take into account the fact that we are treating this version of the article as equally likely to receive views as this version - an assumption I find dubious. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I just made a few quick calculations to see what kind of effect a 5× expansion has on viewcounts. So far there have only been 7 DYKs on ant articles that correspond to 5× expansions and I compared the viewcount in the month immediately before the expansion to the viewcount for today. Effects ranged from a 164-fold viewcount increase to zero increase, but after knocking out both of these outliers, I came up with an average effect of ~2.76-fold increase in viewcounts after the 5× expansion. None of the other articles were as large as this gamergate article so the 2.76 average may be a little low for this article. Anyway with this figure one might predict that the natural view-count for this article without overspill views is around 2k instead of either 731 or 6.7k. So we're talking about a possible 70% overspill at present (assuming all of the previous assumptions are good). Now compare this to the views in Sep 2014 where we would calculate a 99.2% overspill based on the same 2k predicted "natural" views for this article. If we estimate another 30% drop in overspill for next year as people continue to lose interest in the drama topic, then we're now looking at a predicted overflow of ~40% corresponding to 3.4k actual pageviews (including 1.4k overspill). By the end of 2017 we might be looking at 11% of readers (as few as 244 individual lost souls) hoping in vain to find a discussion of Zoe Quinn et al. at this article instead of the controversy article. All of this is speculative, of course, but no more so than the speculations that 98 percent of current views represent spillover. -Thibbs (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but a pitiful controversy will never be the primary topic. Whether or not it gets more views, its true and actual meaning will always refer to a fertile female worker ant. Accept that. This has been the primary topic for over 30 years, and this controversy will easily be forgotten very soon. Perhaps it would have made more sense when more people were interested awhile ago, but why now? It's completely unnecessary and a waste of your time. A disambiguation page under this title is no longer relevant. If we do not want to waste our time this should be withdrawn, consensus seems to show a majority oppose this. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think we mostly agree that the controversy should not be primarytopic; has someone proposed that here? I don't think so. When usage and long-term significance are at odds like this, it makes most sense not to have a primarytopic, but to have disambiguation instead. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well nobody here is seriously suggesting that disambiguation is unnecessary either. The hatnote currently located at the top of this article in fact serves to provide disambiguation. There was no real need to create a disambiguation page between "Gamersgate", "GamersGate", and "GamerGate" because they are all spelled/rendered differently (see
  WP:SMALLDETAILS and the title capitalization guidelines). -Thibbs (talk
  ) 04:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's nice that we could be disambiguating by capital letter, but that's not the current situation. The consumer activist group is being referred to as
  Gamergate controversy. This is Wikipedia jargon, a world in which everything is a "controversy." It's not terminology you will find in the RS. H. Humbert (talk
  ) 11:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• It strikes me as a more elegant solution and one that does not require dismissing the "long-term significance" leg of PRIMARYTOPIC. The logs at "Gamergate controversy" and its previous iterations show that:
  1. 6 September 2014 - The article started life as "GamerGate"
  2. 21 September 2014 - Tony Sidaway moved the article to "Gamergate (controversy)" with the edit summary "As discussed yesterday. Implement our standard disambiguation policy (entomology article is primary as it's a well established scientific term)"
  3. 21 September 2014 - Sceptre moved the article to "Gamergate controversy" with the edit summary "Brackets are unnatural and should be used sparingly"

It would seem to be a true perversion of things that the renaming of "GamerGate" (the controversy) in order to further differentiate it from "gamergate" (the ant) would lead more than a year later when reader interest in the controversy is at an all-time and trending low to the renaming of the ant article under the theory that it is indistinguishable by readers from the controversy... I'm pinging both Tony Sidaway and Sceptre in the hopes that they might shed some light on the rationale leading to the renaming. How, for instance, was it decided that the CamelCase rendering (i.e. "GamerGate") was insufficient to disambiguate between the ant and the controversy? Were

this the discussion leading to the first pagemove from "GamerGate" to "Gamergate (controversy)"? Would anyone familiar with the long history of page move requests at the controversy article be able to provide links to the previous discussions of this topic at the controversy article? -Thibbs (talk

) 13:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: The main reason is IAR. Suppose the ant page was created a month later, would one ever have a discussion about whether to rename the page? This shows me that the current naming is largely a matter of inertia, nothing more. If one does not like IAR reasoning., there are other reasons. Firstly, it is perfectly clear that the majority of traffic comes from people wanting to look at something else. The fact that this is true that even at the low point of interest in the other GG is a point in favour, not against. Secondly, there is no, or little downside to renaming this page, except weird BURO guidelines nobody cares about. Thirdly it will have the side effect of removing the wholly pointless discussion about whether the other GG is a controversy or movement or whatever. I also agree with SST's comments. I would love to take the position of Michael Bolton in Office Space: "Why should I change, he's the one who sucks", but that was just a movie. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Firstly, it is perfectly clear that the majority of traffic comes from people wanting to look at something else" - I don't see it as perfectly obvious. Look at comparable articles:
    GamerGate controversy. -Thibbs (talk
    ) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Thirdly it will have the side effect of removing the wholly pointless discussion about whether the other GG is a controversy or movement or whatever." How so? If the "Gamergate controversy" article were restored to its original name (i.e. "GamerGate") then I would agree, but as long as it is called "Gamergate controversy" I think there will be continued calls to rename it. Moving this page to "Gamergate (biology)" would only increase those requests (move request bans notwithstanding). -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
    • We can bypass the oddities of Wikipedia article history by comparing the level of interest in the two subjects with Google Trends. The pre-Baldwin tweet level of interest in Gamergate was zero compared to four now. The related terms for gamergate are Twitter, Zoe Quinn, and Reddit. I'm no ant specialist, but none of those sound ant-related to me. The level of interest in queen bees is of course vastly greater than that in gamergate ants. H. Humbert (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The main thing I see from Google trends is that Google-wide interest in the term has faded by more than 20x since the scandal broke. Perhaps it makes sense to consider the
        long-term significance of the pagename rather than its fleeting association with internet drama. -Thibbs (talk
        ) 23:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
        • It is plain as the nose on my face that the vast majority of the page views on this page are people interested in the other article. For instance, see the huge spike near 10 Nov 2015. You can find a roughly similar spike in the other article. There are many other reasons already given by Humbert, which I don't want to reiterate. I have no idea why you keep harping on the decline in interest in the other GG. If even at the low point of the Internet drama, the situation is as I've described above, that's a point in favour, not against. Kingsindian ♝ ♚
          • I have no idea why you keep harping on the decline in interest in the other GG - Because the basis of the argument is that large number of readers trying to reach the drama article are unable to find it when they arrive here. I'm suggesting that the "large numbers" looking for drama are in fact small and growing smaller. The evidence is quite clear that one of these topics is something of immediate interest to people last year, of peripheral interest to people today, and of little or no interest to people at this same time next year whereas the other topic will continue to hold steady interest for people today, just as it did in the 1980s, and just as it will in the 2040s. That's a point against (not in favour of) changing name of the stable article so that it's more difficult to find only in the interest of assisting those who are already growing quite understandably bored of the flash-in-the-pan article. -Thibbs (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
            • I am sorry that I didn't get across my point twice, so let me try a third time. This time we use numbers. From the page view statistics, the ant got about 8-9k page views a month. As I said, the vast majority of them are actually for the other page, but let's say half. So 4-5k page views a month. The pageviews of the other GG page has been pretty consistently about 80-90k per month for the past 8 months (December was an outlier, but November was more than 100k for instance). How long do you think it will take 80-90k will become even close to 4-5k? And why do we need to wait for that day? We could just rename the page if it indeed became clear in the distant future. Recall
              WP:CCC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚
              21:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
              • I don't understand your point about waiting for the 80-90k readers per month to become even close to 4-5k. Nobody is suggesting that. All I'm saying is that the Google Trends link shows that interest in the topic has evaporated by more than 20x in the last year and I don't expect that it will suddenly start getting more traction. Rather I suspect that it is a flash-in-the-pan flare up in the larger culture war and that if ever it merited moving the article with clear "
                long-term significance" to another title then it was in September 2014, not now when nobody cares any more. -Thibbs (talk
                ) 21:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
                • "Nobody cares" is simply snobbery. 80-90k people care. And Google Trends actually shows that the interest in the last 8 or so months has been basically flat, or declining only a little. Extrapolate from that trend, not a wildly misleading claim based on arbitrary endpoints.
                  • Let's be specific, then: 60k/779k = 7% people care today compared to the time of the event. I would have understood this proposal then. Today it makes only 7% as much sense. -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
                    • Yes, 7% of a lot of sense is still a great deal of sense, for high enough values of "lot". I also noticed that you picked the number for cherry picked endpoints, instead of looking at the trend, despite me warning explicitly against it. So it is rather useless to argue about this more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
                      • Cherrypicked endpoints?
                        drama-blip of limited or no significance to future generations. Maybe it seems inconceivable right now in the present but do you really think it is more likely that your grandchildren will be reading about #GamerGate in their history textbooks than that they will be reading about gamergate ants in their entomology textbooks? And let's not imagine that it will take that long either. You can already read about gamergate ants in entomology textbooks whereas you can't read about #GamerGate in any history textbooks. Take the long-view and the primary topic is obvious. -Thibbs (talk
                        ) 00:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I feel there's a sufficient reason to rename the page, if only because the controversy is currently more important. This is similar to the Palin edit war, is it not?
   (talk) 
  18:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, note the word "currently", yet the popularity is diminishing fast. I don't see your sufficient reasons though. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The Google trends link strongly indicates that the coverage of the video game topic is decreasing rapidly. I can see a case to reevaluate if something happens and the video game controversy is still being covered on a fairly regular basis a few years down the line.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The ant is primary and durable. The news coming out of the controversy has dropped off significantly over the year. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The ant has lasting significance. AIRcorn (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I have nothing additional to add. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think this move would make more sense in the event that an actual "GamerGate" article is made, rather than the propaganda-tier "Gamergate controversy" spin that is used for that article's current title. Now I would assume that most of this article's traffic comes from people searching the term "gamergate", so there's clearly a demand for such a summary of what gamergate is instead of the "controversy" surrounding it. Until such an article is made however, a disambiguation of this established scientific grouping seems perhaps a bit premature.173.242.20.132 (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on grounds of the ant's long-term cultural significance. At the risk of
  WP:BALL I think it's useful to ask, will the controversy even be the long-term primary meeting of gamergate in even a restricted field such as video gaming? It's such an obvious nickname that once this controversy fades, another will take its place... giving us a three-way DAB with more to follow. Andrewa (talk
  ) 20:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely BALL territory, Andrewa, but isn't that all the m/ore reason to disambiguate? --BDD (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To the extent that it is WP:BALL territory, it's not a reason to do anything, at least not so far as Wikipedia article titles are concerned. That's why I based my vote on another argument rather than that one. But it does give me a little extra comfort that in this case the rules produce a good result. Andrewa (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the "ethics in gaming journalism" movement was only notable for the controversies that erupted from it; it requires controversy or a similar natural disambiguator in the title to meet NPOV requirements, notwithstanding the ant. So it can be
  Gamergate controversy or Gamergate dustup or Gamergate ruckus or Gamergate wifflewaffle, but never Gamergate - that's a species of ant. There is no ambiguity to resolve here. People searching for the donnybrook by that name will find it through the hatnote on the ant's article, that's what hatnotes are for. And frankly I find it a quite pleasant thought that people who come here looking for information on a sustained campaign of vicious sexual harassment learn something about ants instead. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk
  ) 20:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, me too. Again, what that last sentence says may not be a compelling reason to rename or not to rename, but it does confirm for me that the rules are right on the money in this case and so we don't need to even consider an appeal to
    WP:IAR. It's important we cover both topics with due weight, but our focus as an encyclopedia is towards on the more useful bits of human knowledge. Andrewa (talk
    ) 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
    • You are claiming that the current setup is regular under the rules? Seriously? "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term," according to
      WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No way is this topic primary by that standard. The current setup is steering thousands of readers to the wrong article every month. If I understand the above correctly, this is feature, not a bug -- a fact you take malicious pleasure in. H. Humbert (talk
      ) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well then you didn't understand at all. We only have one topic about a thing properly titled "gamergate", and that's a species of ant. The bunch of dudebros that got together on the internet to promote and celebrate their fear and hatred of women were never themselves known as gamergate, they just caused a huge controversy and we decided to call it the "gamergate controversy". We could just as well have called it the "gaming journalism controversy" or the "parents' basements controversy" - some time in the not too distant future we probably will give it a lasting neutral descriptive name. "Gamergate" is not a thing in that sense, and never will be. So
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC favours the thing that has always existed and continues to exist, the ant actually known as gamergate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk
  ) 15:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Additional comment. Seeing the still general opposition to moving this page, maybe it's time to put a moratorium on move requests? It's been mentioned in the last few rejected requests. This was essentially done over at the controversy article to after many proposed moves being rejected and people trying to move this page without conversation by protecting the controversy page from being moved. It looks like that since that page can't be moved, some people are trying to get around that by trying to get this page moved in the meantime.
  talk
  ) 20:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support 6-month moratorium - I hope you don't mind I broke this out into its own section. I agree, there's a consistent consensus that the titles are as they should be, evident from various moves having been rejected by consensus many times over just the last year ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], I probably missed some).
  Gamergate controversy is already under a 6-month move request moratorium, this page should be too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk
  ) 20:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's actually perfectly fine as it gives the thought more prominence. 6 months at a minimum sounds good to me. Both pages probably should have been originally protected, but the ongoing requests since with the previous history would seem to justify adding the moratorium here at this time.

talk

) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Those RMs are all on the
  Gamergate controversy page. They shouldn't be lumped together with this one. H. Humbert (talk
  ) 01:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but all of those requests also had to do with this page, and any request on this page will have to do with that one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

On review of the RMs linked, I find only 2 or 3 which would have affected this article [11], [12], and potentially [13] if capitalisation is not sufficiently distinct. -

'c.s.n.s.'

12:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support moratorium (at 6 months) per Kingofaces' reasons. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support and only if it is of limited duration. I think the problems here spring mostly from the contentious title of the #GamerGate article, and from
  recentism. My hope is that some kind of an agreement can be reached regarding that article's title but I know that will take time. Also for the record I'd like to note that I think User:BDD's motivations as proposer are unimpeachable. The discussion may have had some crossover effects, but the proposal itself wasn't in my view a backdoor effort related to #GamerGate. -Thibbs (talk
  ) 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Since this discussion is on life support until someone closes it as not moved, and since my call for a neutral discussion free of value judgments lasted all of eight minutes, I'll go ahead and say that personally, I actually do find the Gamergate "movement" rather vile and think any reader is better off learning about the lives of ants than getting into that mess. But as a professional Wikipedian, I feel an obligation to respond to what our readers choose. Perhaps this is a fine case to appeal to PRIMARYTOPIC's rather squishy "educational value" provision. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that my comments were directly pointed at you, but rather than the gamergate controversy just tends to hijack discussion involving it as happened above. That being said, many of the things you mentioned have already been discussed to death in previous move discussions mainly centering on

talk

) 01:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There has indeed been a series of RMs in which anti-recentism has trumped the primary topic guideline. But

WP:RECENT has nothing to do with the issue of how to select a primary topic. (Please read it, everyone.) What do the people who cite it think it says, anyway? What it seems to mean in practice is, "Never make anything primary topic, unless you can seriously screw up traffic patterns by doing so." H. Humbert (talk

) 10:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.